FEDERAL COURTS Introduction and Historical Context Background o Exam Theory, Historical, Public Policy question probably integrated

ed with the Issue Spotter Read footnotes in the casesnot the footnotes in the notes o Federalism Question http://www.reichpaolella.com/2012/08/reich-paolella-files-u-s-supreme-court-amicusbrief-on-alien-tort-statute/ o Federal Common Law Separation of Power Federalism o Litigation Jurisdiction Practice and Procedure Formation of the Federal Courts o Federal Judiciary non-controversial Federalists (stronger national power) Supreme Court and Trial Courts States Rights wanted only Supreme Court Compromise Constitution created the original jurisdiction of Federal Courts Congress many create inferior Federal Courts from time to time. Senate confirms Judges State Equality Equal suffrage and formerly elected by State legislatures Article III o Judges Independent Federal Judiciary Lifetime appointments and Congress cannot lower salary Reaction against English Crowns abuse of its Judges o Court may hear 9 type of cases *NOT COURTS OF GENERAL JURISDICTION* Limited Power to hear specific cases 1) All cases arising under the Constitution, treatises, and laws of the United States [Federal Law]. Articles of Confederation Federal laws were ineffective because they were unenforceable. Madison wanted extreme Federalism o Negation Clause Congress could negate State law o Military Force Federal government could use force against states Federal Judges are required to enforce the Supremacy Clause 2) All cases where the United States is a party Allow Federal government to vindicate own rights 3) All cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls Foreign diplomats did not want states to violate international relations and risk war. 4) All cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; Nation had to speak with one voice on issues that involve piracy 5) Cases between States.

Recourse between States would have been war/violence if Courts did not adjudicate these disputes. 6) Diversity Jurisdiction citizens of different states States were biased against those from other states 7) Foreign States could sue US citizens Offended nation would have just cause for war against US. Federal Judiciary Act 1789 o Passed by the First Congress: authors of the Constitution heavy influence o Created 15 District Courts and 3 Circuit Courts o Congress has never given Federal Courts its full judicial jurisdiction o Congress did not give Federal Courts blanket jurisdiction over arising cases until Reconstruction and post-Civil War Amendments Today o Every District Judge has over 500 cases overwhelming volume o Every Circuit Court Judge signs over 500 cases o Supreme Court hears over 80-95 cases a year discretionary jurisdiction o Administrative Judges Article I Judges Judicial Function of the Courts o 1793 Washington Administration sent SCOTUS several questions Desperately trying to avoid getting involved in war between France and Britain CJ John Jay refused to answer these questions Beyond the power of the Federal Courts Arguments o Text o Structure Limited Jurisdiction o Historical Practice English Practice not comparable because English courts were inferior to the Executive Branch stark contrast to American Separation of Power o Function Creating a precedent Lacks an adversarial system Too little facts to flesh out the details o Precedent

Justiciability Help define the role of the federal courts in constitutional structureunderstanding how it relates to the powers of the coordinate branches in constitutional scheme. Standing o Who constitutes a proper plaintiff to invoke federal judicial power Ripeness o When is a matter sufficiently immediate and concrete to justify judicial consideration Mootness o What should a court do when a crucial element of a live dispute goes away during the adjudication process Political Question Doctrine

What sort of legal disputes does the Constitution mark off for exclusive resolution by branches other than the judiciary

Prohibition on Advisory Opinions In order to not be an advisory opinion: o 1) Actual Dispute between adverse litigations. o 2) Substantial likelihood that a federal court decision in favor of claimant will bring about some change or have some effect. Must be binding decisionsrather than recommendations.

Marbury v. Madison Holding: Court ruled against Marbury and held that it could not hear the case as a matter of original jurisdiction because the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional and, hence, void. Principles o 1) Judicial Review - Established the power of the federal courts to review the executive branchs actions. o 2) Political Question Doctrine category of issues that were not reviewable by the federal courts because they are committed to the other branches of government. o 3) Article III Creates Ceiling on the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction; Congress cannot expand it. o 4) Establishes power of the federal courts to declare federal statutes unconstitutional. o 5) Establish the Court as the authoritative interpreter of the Constitution.

Standing To Sue Determination whether specific person is the proper party to bring a matter to the Court for adjudication. o 1) suffered or imminently will suffer an injury in fact; and See Allen Party seeking review must be himself among the injured. Sierra Club v. Morton Cannot be generalized grievance impact is plainly undifferentiated and common to all members of the public. US v. Richardson Discrimination sufficient. Heckler v. Mathews. Perpetuating archaic and stereotypic notions or by stigmatizing members of a disfavored group as innately inferior can cause serious noneconomic injuries. Lujan v. Natl Wildlife Federation US v. SCRAP Injury to . Friends of Earth v. Laidlaw. Reasonable concern that pollution damaged land that they otherwise would have used. Tax-Payer Suits o 2) Fairly Traceable to the s conduct; and o 3) Decision is likely to redress the injury.

Allen v. Wright Holding: Refused to allow standing to challenge IRSs policy of providing tax exemptions to private schools that discriminated on the basis of race. o Injury:

s claim that they were stigmatized by governments policy was insufficient to constitute an injury for standing purposes. Standing if person was personally denied equal treatment by challenged discriminatory conduct. Fairly Traceable: Governments conduct (IRS exemptions did not cause discrimination) but the injury is caused by an independent action of some third party not before the Court. Enough racially discriminatory private schools receiving tax exemptions in community for exemption withdrawals to make an appreciable difference in public school integration.